[QUOTE=YogSosoth]
I’m sure your reason in mentioning that is to signal your support for laws that outlaw the use of such guns, not just as semantic wordplay of what’s legal and what’s not. I look forward to your next thread outlining that rationality
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps if you’d read the whole quote in the context I was writing it you would have a better idea of what I was saying. Sadly, this does not seem to have been the case.
Can you quote someone here attempting to use the 2nd to eliminate regulation on gun? If someone (who isn’t me) IS trying to do so, well, they seem singularly unaware of the plain fact that this horse is long dead and has been tenderized enough, and that the actual question is simply where the lines are drawn, not whether there will be lines at all.
I don’t agree and I don’t see any evidence that this will be the case. The only thing that has protected this right for the majority of citizens has been the 2nd, and even WITH the Second in place anti-gun types have made serious attempts to ban any and all weapons they thought they could…and, quite obviously, they continue to do so, even when they aren’t getting the traction they would like. There are cities in the US that have effective categorical bans on whole classes of weapons even today, and despite both the 2nd AND recent USSC rulings. So, in your infinite wisdom, what makes you think this would be the same without the 2nd protecting the right from those who are dedicated and organized and who obviously want to ban as many guns as they can from the hands of ordinary citizens?
Seems to me that if you feel it would be exactly the same under a Constitution with the 2nd as under one without it then there should be no worries about keeping it in there, seeing as how you think it makes no difference and all.
Horseshit. It’s not the 2nd that’s blocking background checks, it’s elected politicians. If, indeed, 90% of Americans want the things then eventually they will happen (of course, we DO have them today on just about any gun outside of a gun show you purchase, including any gun you purchase on the internet).
In fact, the whole Bill of Rights is badly designed.
If you want to have certain rights defined in constitutional law (and I’m not convinced even that is a sound idea), have a charter of rights off to the side of the constitution proper. Do not append it to the constitution and treat it as a part of the same document that organizes the government. Just don’t.
Further, the USA’s Bill of Rights is written in much too absolute language to function as a basis for law. The Second Amendment is confusing, but the First is a horror. No law restricting freedom of the press? Seriously? So no possibility of a federal law against fraud or influence peddling via the press then, no possibility of an equal time law, nothing! And with the Fourteenth Amendment, states can’t do this either.
No, they are bad laws because they are simplistic. They need to die a death.
And there was no such holding until Heller. Heller codified in common law what was previously a political position, but was in a constitutional sense undefined at best, and arguably just plain erroneous.
So if you’re being honest, you get your right to bear arms from Heller and your activist judges.
Is the possibility of minority override your only concern? Hypothetically, if a gun restriction law was enacted with majority approval, would you object to it?
I don’t even have an objection to gun RESTRICTION laws enacted by a minority, depending on what they are, how sane they are, how demonstrable they are to solving some real problem, and whether there is a clear ulterior motive in passing them. We have them now, after all, and I am not knee jerk opposed to even some rational tightening (background checks or closing the gun show loophole, for instance aren’t out of the question from where I’m sitting).
What I’m opposed to is blanket bans and fiat actions, especially when they are clearly against such a large percentage of American citizens opinions. If a majority of Americans wants to strike down the 2nd, or even if a large minority wants too, there is a process for that and I’m good with folks using that process as it was intended.
Okay, let’s say it was a complete ban but it was supported by the majority. Let’s say there was a referendum where everyone voted and 75% of the people voted to ban guns. Would you feel this was valid?
Of course. Wouldn’t even have to be that high a majority I don’t think, but certainly if that number of folks voted for a ban (or to get rid of the 2nd), I’d be good with that as long as they used the process.
Not unless we are planning to break up the Union, or go back to the bad old days of pre-60’s (that would be 1860’s) states semi-sovereign rights, no. Turn it around…would you be good with having, say, a majority of people in Ohio who want to ban freedom of speech or the right to assembly in that state? That a good thing? Should Idaho get to vote on whether they want to repeal 13th and start keeping every Canadian they can catch as a slave?
No, I would not. But I don’t regard those rights as being grounded on majority approval. In my opinion, the rights in the First and Thirteenth Amendments are so fundamental that they transcend majority rule. It was wrong, for example, for black people to be enslaved even when the white majority approved of it. It would be equally wrong if the Christian majority decided to out law Islam.
But I’ll admit I don’t feel this way about gun ownership. I don’t see it as a fundamental right at the same level as speech or religion or slavery. I see it as something more like a speed limit or alcohol or marijuana - subjects which should be handled via normal legislative process and majority consensus.
So while I don’t think Ohio should be able to ban free speech and practice slavery, I’d accept the possibility that Ohio might ban alcohol or legalize marijuana - or ban guns or legalize guns. If that’s what the majority of Ohioans want, it’s their decision to make.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
No, I would not. But I don’t regard those rights as being grounded on majority approval. In my opinion, the rights in the First and Thirteenth Amendments are so fundamental that they transcend majority rule. It was wrong, for example, for black people to be enslaved even when the white majority approved of it. It would be equally wrong if the Christian majority decided to out law Islam.
[/QUOTE]
And yet, in our system, such reversals are possible, if there is sufficient political and, by extension, voter support for them. That’s how our system works…nothing is off the table, in the end, and the entire Constitution could be set aside with a sufficient majority.
YOU don’t see it that way…but many do. And, currently, the political inertia and voter representation exists to continue to maintain the current right…or, to make it extremely volatile to try to circumvent it by fiat and re-write the Constitution without it in there. That’s the point I’ve been trying to make in this thread…well, one of them.
Right, but that’s your personal feelings, and you don’t feel we should have a 2nd Amendment protecting personal ownership. But we DO have such an Amendment, so what you are really doing is trying to pick and choose which Amendments or rights YOU feel we should or shouldn’t have, or should or shouldn’t be able to be waved aside by these theoretical folks in Ohio. It doesn’t work that way, however…thankfully…and folks can’t just arbitrarily set aside rights that they don’t agree with while keeping the ones they do, like picking which things on a buffet you want to eat.
True, in theory an amendment can be repealed. But in reality it’s only happened once. So while you’re worried that the anti-gun minority might enshrine their beliefs into law by subverting the majority process, the way I see it, the pro-gun minority has already enshrined their beliefs into the constitution and put their views beyond the normal majority process. And while I tend to agree more with them, I don’t think either side should have its position placed beyond the normal political process.
Again, I have no problem protecting the issue from fiats. But I don’t think it should be protected from majority rule.
You seem to have missed the topic of this thread. It’s not “Do we have a Second Amendment?” The answer to that is yes.
But the topic is “Should we have a Second Amendment?” So I’m on topic by expressing my personal opinion on that issue. Or do you feel guns rights are so sacrosanct that people shouldn’t even be allowed to discuss the possibility of not having them? That’s happened in the past. Several Southern states used to have laws which made it illegal to even discuss the idea of abolition.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
Again, I have no problem protecting the issue from fiats. But I don’t think it should be protected from majority rule.
[/QUOTE]
It’s not.
We went over this pages ago.
Again, pages ago. Who are we supposed to be representing? Basically, an individual fantasy or the actual, real world American people. If it’s just a wish list, then I want a pony…and a bevy of scantily clad love muffins, peeling me grapes and fanning me with those palm frond thingies.
I’ve answered this question about 50 times already…if you haven’t gotten in by now, I don’t think me going through it yet again is going to work.
The Second was added in the past. However, there was a reason it was added…and that reason still resonates with the electorate today. You can’t simply dismiss it…though that’s what you seem bound and determined to do. At this point, do what you like…leave it out of this fantasy Constitution. I’m sure no one will object or care, since we are in a fantasy world where we can do whatever we like by fiat, and we don’t represent anything other than our opinions. I’m going to that beach, where there is a sun temple pyramid, a sun god robe, and SCLM to throw little pickles at me…
And all that got resolved and is now enshrined in the Constitution…well, unless we are going to pick and choose which Amendments we want. Those guys in Idaho are looking strangely at the Canadians as we speak.
I really see no functional, intellectual, or even any important esthetic/stylistic difference between that and having “a charter of rights off to the side of the constitution proper.” That’s exactly what the BoR is. Of course at the same time it has to be in the Constitution proper, or it has no force of constitutional law.
You’re being surprisingly disingenuous here. You’ve already conceded that making something a constitutional amendment has an effect. So why are you now pretending it doesn’t? Or are you pretending that a majority and a supermajority are the same thing?
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
You’re being surprisingly disingenuous here. You’ve already conceded that making something a constitutional amendment has an effect. So why are you now pretending it doesn’t?
[/QUOTE]
You said " But I don’t think it should be protected from majority rule"…and I’m saying it’s not. No Amendment is protected from majority rule. How is this statement (of fact) disingenuous??
I simply wasn’t splitting hairs. You simply said that you didn’t want a Constitutional Amendment from being protected from a majority and I was pointing out that it’s not. As I’ve gone into detail on this before, I didn’t feel the need to, once again go into a long explanation.
Sixty percent is a clear majority. Sixty percent of the people can enact a law. Can sixty percent of the people override a Constitutional Amendment?
Laws are designed to respond to majority rule. Constitutional Amendments are designed to limit majority rule.
The fact that you want a Constitutional Amendment to defend a position you favor means you’re aware of this. You’re claiming you favor majority rule while seeking protection from it. I find that disingenuous.
Yes, with another such, but the process takes a long time and has to go through the state legislatures. (Of course you don’t need a 3/4 popular majority to pass an amendment – a razor-thin majority at the polls is enough to elect a pro-amendment supermajority of legislators, or just to send sufficient demand-signal to those already in office.)
I really see no functional, intellectual, or even any important esthetic/stylistic difference between that and having “a charter of rights off to the side of the constitution proper.” That’s exactly what the BoR is. Of course at the same time it has to be in the Constitution proper, or it has no force of constitutional law.